Mit der Version 10.x der Google-Kamera-App (Pixel Camera) hat Google offenbar eine harte Abhängigkeit von den Play Services eingeführt.

    • TheFrirish@jlai.lu
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Yes but the the pixel camera app has much better quality that the GOS camera or open camera. They cannot compete.

      It’s terribly frustrating I am so tired of google messing up Android (and their pixels). I use the google camera app on GOS and it needs the play store, Play services and the google photo…

      • passenger@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Specify how it has much better quality, then post that spec in some github of your favourite camera app.

        Your data is the price for the google app, it isn’t free. They can do what they want with it. And you buy it.

        My advice for you is to shake off the google camera addiction and notice how good the alternatives are. Good enough for sure, and getting better. I have not missed google camera at all.

        Maybe try this freedcam as well.

        • TheFrirish@jlai.lu
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          11 months ago

          Graining is the worst offender on GOS Camera app. The lower the light the more graining.

          This is on GOS camera app 9107

          This is the official gcam 9108

          Pictures are taken on a Pixel 9

          Hopefully the image compression doesn’t mess everything up

          • Blackmist@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            I mean that’s just physics. Less light entering the sensor = more grain as it boosts the brightness to compensate. They both take the same picture, but extra processing hides the flaws.

            Got to be honest, I prefer grain over a bunch of AI swirls.

        • Lka1988@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          11 months ago

          Your data is the price for the google app, it isn’t free.

          No, I paid $1200 for the phone. That was the price for google’s camera app. Google is double-dipping now.

  • CerebralHawks@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    Android is not your friend. If your camera needs to spy on you, then it’s not your camera.

    I use iPhone myself — though I was an Android user longer, and I enjoy both mobile platforms for their various strengths — but we really do need a third option. So Android is kind of like Windows now, it leans heavy into AI (especially on the Pixel side), and it’s on everything (except the iPhone), and iPhone has always just been a pocket Mac, but with the walled app garden. Apple says you can trust them with your personal data, but you don’t know that and Apple is big enough that they can basically do whatever they want — and they’ve been cosying up to fascists in the US. So that’s unsettling. Mobiles need a Linux option. A totally open source option that serves the user exclusively, or can be made to do so. GrapheneOS is a fine choice, but it’s limited to Pixels. If you have anything else, you’re out of luck, and if you have a Pixel, you or someone else has paid Google iPhone money for a device that’s at least a few generations behind performance-wise. So not ideal.

    Of course, most Android users and certainly most Android fans won’t care about this — I’m coming from the privacy perspective. And Google’s always been pretty clear that they are not there for your privacy.

      • CerebralHawks@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        For customisation? No. For privacy? Yes.

        One’s made by a computer company and the other is made by an advertising company. These are not the same things at all.

        • flatbield@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          I use to think so. There have been things more recently that makes me unsure if the distinction is as large as we would like to think. Apple is clearly less transprent too so it makes it realy hard to judge.

          • zelnix@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            Less transparent my ass. The first time you use any apple app it gives you a summary of the privacy implications, what data is collected, etc. that’s the exact opposite of your statement.

            Google instead links you to their monolithic TOS / privacy policy which covers all their products and is super opaque.